Effects of postnatal interventions for the reduction of vertical HIV transmission on infant growth and non‐HIV infections: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Guidelines in resource-poor settings have progressively included interventions to reduce postnatal HIV transmission through breast milk. In addition to HIV-free survival, infant growth and non-HIV infections should be considered. Determining the effect of these interventions on infant growth and non-HIV infections will inform healthcare decisions about feeding HIV-exposed infants. We synthesize findings from studies comparing breast to formula feeding, early weaning to standard-duration breastfeeding, breastfeeding with extended antiretroviral (ARV) to short-course ARV prophylaxis, and alternative preparations of infant formula to standard formula in HIV-exposed infants, focusing on infant growth and non-HIV infectious morbidity outcomes. The review objectives were to collate and appraise evidence of interventions to reduce postnatal vertical HIV transmission, and to estimate their effect on growth and non-HIV infections from birth to two years of age among HIV-exposed infants. METHODS: We searched PubMed, SCOPUS, and Cochrane CENTRAL Controlled Trials Register. We included randomized trials and prospective cohort studies. Two authors independently extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. Rate ratios and mean differences were used as effect measures for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. Where pooling was possible, we used fixed-effects meta-analysis to pool results across studies. Quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Prospective cohort studies comparing breast- versus formula-fed HIV-exposed infants found breastfeeding to be protective against diarrhoea in early life [risk ratio (RR)=0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.13 to 0.74]. The effect of breastfeeding against diarrhoea [hazard ratio (HR)=0.74; 95% CI=0.57 to 0.97] and respiratory infections (HR=0.65; 95% CI=0.41 to 1.00) was significant through two years of age. The only randomized controlled trial (RCT) available showed that breastfeeding tended to be protective against malnutrition (RR=0.63; 95% CI=0.36 to 1.12). We found no statistically significant differences in the rates of non-HIV infections or malnutrition between breast-fed infants in the extended and short-course ARV prophylaxis groups. CONCLUSIONS: Low to moderate quality evidence suggests breastfeeding may improve growth and non-HIV infection outcomes of HIV-exposed infants. Extended ARV prophylaxis does not appear to increase the risk for HIV-exposed infants for adverse growth or non-HIV infections compared to short-course ARV prophylaxis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".